Tuesday, June 28, 2011

To the uninitiated, this seems like the most idiotic crock of crap. Let's take a look at the facts of the morning of 9/11 and see how this "silly" idea came about.

No one saw a plane crash in PA. There was very little wreckage at the "crash site." There were no pieces over two feet long. There were no bodies. There was not "one drop of blood." There was no black box. There was a second debris field 8 miles away. This is very odd and if anything would give credibility to the idea that the plane was shot down, however, there was also very little debris present at the second location.

No one saw a commercial plane hit the Pentagon. Some witnesses thought they may have seen what appeared to be a small passenger plane or missile.

There were no flight manifests for Flights 11 and 77. To many aviation experts, this means that the flights never existed. These flight numbers are for the planes hitting the north tower and the Pentagon.

Let's say for a moment that there were no planes at the Pentagon and in PA. If that is the case, why would there necessarily be any planes at the WTC? Well, people saw them and heard them. There is video of the planes hitting the towers. That's tough to get around. But what did they see? And what did they hear?

They saw a Boeing 767 fly over New York city at 580mph. This is a problem. The maximum speed of the Boeing 767 at sea level is 360mph. That's not a 20 mph difference, but a 220 mph difference! Given that drag varies on the square of the velocity and the power required to push through that drag varies on the 4th power of the velocity. A discrepency of 220 mph is enormous! Pushing a large aircraft an extra 220mph at sea level is not a trivial matter. This amounts to an increase in power of 674% -- above full power! This could not be accomplished by dive bombing the plane, which was not the case as the speed was taken while the plane was at a level cruise. (The 767 would most likely break apart if somehow it was powered to cruise at 580mph at sea level -- sea level being an enormous difference from a 40,000ft cruising altitude, where the air density is less than 25% of air at sea level.)

If you look closely, the plane passes into the building rather like a phantom. Also, quite significant is the fact that when it hits the building, there seem to be numerous explosions along the surface of the building. Not metal and glass crashing, but explosions. Furthermore, they don't seem to be timed exactly -- they fire off at slightly different moments, which don't really coincide with the plane hitting the building. Why would there be numerous small explosions from a plane hitting a building? (I'm not talking about the big ball of fire explosion, but the small explosions along the surface. These explosions seem to be making the Wyle E. Coyote cut-out on the face of the building.)

Another obvious question is "What could else it possibly be? It looks like an airplane!" Well, examine this link and scroll down to Topic 7: Hologram Technology. Most people are not familiar with the above top secret classified holographic technology which can project solid looking objects from fast flying fighter planes. Witnesses heard a plane overhead, but it is not impossible that they heard a missile and when couple with the image of a plane, assumed it was a plane. It would be fairly simple to add in a sound effect of loud low frequency rumble, that when added to the sound of a cruise missile, closely models the spectral make-up of a Boeing 767.

Hologram Technology

There have been anecdotal reports of people giving speeches on stage at business conferences, while engaging the audience. Several minutes into the speech, the actual person walks out and stands next to his hologram which has duped the audience. A friend of aviation legend John Lear was driving in the California desert and spotted an enormous military cargo plane flying overhead. He found it odd that such a plane would be flying at such a location -- out in the middle of nowhere. He looked up and it vanished into thin air. The witness felt that this must have been a test run of holographic technology.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE?

This is seemingly a huge problem with the whole "no plane" theory. Real people died on 9/11. There is no denying that. However, the passenger lists are actually supportive pieces of evidence to the idea of "no planes." The 4 planes all had low loads -- less than 200 people total were onboard, including the crew. It turns out that many of the names were employees of Boeing and other military contractors or were in the military itself. The government set up a compensation fund for families of the victims of 9/11. Each family would receive $2 million compensation. Only a small percentage of the families entitled to money came forward to collect! For one plane of 40 victims, only 6 families tried to claim the $2 million! Moreover, six of the alleged hijackers were seen after 9/11. One of them spoke in length with his father the next day. Another hijacker was interviewed on the BBC on 9/12! One must ask, "How can a pilot fly a plane into a building and do an interview on the BBC the next day?!"

Passenger lists

So what happened to the people? It would be fairly simple for CIA operatives or black ops NSA security to pick up the crews and the few actual passengers from the planes.

Considering the 9/11 attacks as a whole: What would be the most effective way to carry out the operation? If the goal was to bring down the world's biggest office buildings in grand fashion (while making it look like an enemy attack), would you want to use commercial airplanes? Hell no! Even if you wanted to fly the planes into the towers and THEN implode them with tons of nano-thermite, you still would not want to use planes for such an operation. (Tests of the WTC dust has shown it contains nano-thermite). Experienced pilots have testified that it would be extremely difficult to achieve a center hit with the plane. You would need a totally reliable pilot who could be counted on for a suicide flight. By all accounts, the hijackers were not very capable pilots. If just one of the planes just nicked the edge of the tower, it would look enormously fake to still implode the building.

There is also the problem of the flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon. The plane made a nearly 360 degree sharp turn and decent, which would have been difficult even in a large military jet. This maneuver would not have been possible in a Boeing 767. Furthermore, the alleged pilot to this craft Hani Hanjour, was not competent to fly a Boeing 767 at any speed. He could barely fly a Cesna in flight school. Here is one of many articles on "pilot extraordinaire" Hani Hanjour.

Pilot extraordinaire

Pilots for Truth examined the flight data recorder for Flight 77 and found it to be faked. If an accurate barometer reading had been used for the data, the flight would have passed over the Pentagon at an altitude of 273 feet. There is a run through simulation of Flight 77 on the Pilots for 911 Truth site.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

There are many more reasons why the idea of airplanes does not hold water. Pilots for Truth realize the many problems with this notion. So I ask, "If there were no planes, what happened?" That is a great question. So far, the evidence suggests that cruise missiles were flown into the Pentagon and WTC 1 and 2. (Of course nothing hit WTC 7 -- it imploded seemingly by itself.) The cruise missiles projected a hologram of a Boeing 767 over NYC. They didn't bother projecting anything over the Pentagon. Flight 93 most likely never took place. "Let's roll" was some creative writing, as was "Hi mom, it's your son Mark Bingham. You know who I am? [I'm about to crash and die.]" It turns out that cell phone calls from planes were not possible in 2001.* The Flight 93 calls could have been faked with available Voice Morphing Technology.**

Nearly 3000 people died for a false flag to justify a false war. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. simply wanted to proceed with military control of the Middle East.

* The calls from Flight 93 were made from an altitude between 34,300 feet and 40,700 feet. Canadian scientist and mathematician A.K. Dewdney determined that cell phone calls at an altitude of 20,000 feet could be completed at a rate of less than 1 in 100 in 2001. Higher altitudes would have been more difficult. The chances of two callers making successful calls would have been less than 1 in 10,000. According to reports, there were 9 cell phone calls from Flight 93 at an altitude of over 30,000 feet.

** As reported in the Washington Post in 1999, William Arkin wrote "By taking just a 10 minute digital recording of anyone's voice" voice morphing experts can "clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile."

8 comments:

Almost all of the Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance has been successfully poisoned by this distraction.

As a result, their peripheral involvement in other issues like the war, homeland security, JTTF and Fukushima compete as the "elephant in the room" and credibility drops below Bachmann's IQ.

Despite successfully compromising Portland's most visible 9/11 Truth group, we can only be grateful for the split in the national movements over the years that have resulted in more disciplined, forensic study.

Why is that? I know Rob Balsamo and have confidence in Pilot's for 9/11 Truth. Here's a link to their home page, which includes some of the studies for impossible speed found at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ I also recommend John Lear's affidavit on the Scholars forum (search at http://911scholars.ning.com) and Pilot's "9/11 Intercepted", which both discuss this in some detail.

How can the Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance not have been impressed by the impossible entry of the plane into the building or the fact that, in these videos, the plane passes through its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air, which you can verify for yourself using single-frame advance? Look at the Hezarkhani footage:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/No-Planes

Do you really think this is a plane colliding with a massive, 500,000 ton steel and concrete building? Do you understand that it is intersecting with eight (8) floors, consisting of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and external support columns on the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete? At 208' across, we are talking about an acre of concrete apiece--and eight (8) of them!

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc-gallery.html

What do you imagine would happen if a Boeing 767 had hit just one of these floors suspended in space? We know the damage that can be done by a tiny bird weighing a few ounces when hit by a commercial carrier. What about an acre of concrete on a steel truss? I am having a hard time imagining why any of you would suppose the laws of aerodynamics, engineering and physics were suspended on 9/11.

Notice, too, the relative spacing of the narrow windows, which were eighteen inches wide with the support columns separated by a meter, so they were less than 50% of the space between them. And of course the vertical space between floors was windowless. Which means that much less than 50% of the facade was made of glass. The plane should have crumpled and dropped to zero velocity.

While the engines might have been expected to enter the buildings, the wings and the tail should have broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. So I think that the Portland Alliance should accept the weight of the evidence where Pilots and John Lear have already confirmed the impossible speed and the other indications of fakery are even more impressive.

So I am at a loss as to why the Portland Alliance should have been "poisoned" by this question. Since videos that show impossible events have to have been faked on way or another--by altering the footage using CGIs or video compositing; or by using a fake plane, such as a hologram rather than a real one--we know the videos were faked. I hope you will tell me more, because these proofs are solid.

Thanks for reminding me that this article was mixing Pilots for 9/11 Truth references in with the no plane holographic imagery references. That's like mixing crawfish etouffee with cheap ketchup! I don't take issue with information posted on http://pilotsfor911truth.org, but I am also not familiar with any member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth that subscribes to the "no plane theory".

(Continued)

In the paragraph underneath the heading "Pilots for 9/11 Truth", you ask "If there were no planes, what happened?" I see Pilots for 9/11 Truth refuting airspeeds, flight data, pilot skill, flight lists and cell technology.but I haven't found Pilots for 9/11 Truth taking planes completely out of the equation. Through Operation Home Run, the planes did not need to be modified to be flown remotely and I suspect Dov Zakheim had a hand in this technology, although a real investigation may confirm or deny this.

Concerning the Pentagon, there is a lot of suspicion and strong circumstantial evidence refuting the official story. In addition, Pilots for 9/11 Truth's analysis of the flight data recorder goes further and indeed places the plane well above the Pentagon with two independent altitude readings (both Doppler and barometric). Jeffrey Latas, an ex gulf war fighter pilot, commercial pilot and a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, confirms the flight data analysis, but is not entirely convinced himself about the idea that no jet hit the Pentagon. I do not believe Latas is compromised over the issue of 9/11. Obviously, there needs to be a thorough investigation of this theater of 9/11, but it's close to impossible to avoid speculation. This potential pitfall seems to be exacerbated by the FBI's confiscation of 80 or more odd recordings from different security cameras around the area.

I view the Pentagon as a potential honeypot propaganda tactic that attracts as many bees to the hive as possible before destroying the nest. Here, the Pentagon can simply pull or modify evidence they are in control of and use it to discredit (justified or not) the whole movement dealing with all theaters of 9/11. Thankfully, we have New York. As you state in your lectures, it seems like the establishment is asking us not to believe "our own lying eyes".

The following three conditions cannot be explained without explosives:

1. Molten iron in the basements of all three buildings.

2. The complete annihilation of all three buildings.

3. The rate of which all three buildings collapse while they are being destroyed.

It has been demonstrated time and again that the establishment has nowhere to go with this. Presenting these three basic items is the equivalent of placing your hands onto the neck of the establishment and squeezing. They are stuck. The more they dispute it, the worse it gets for them. Instead, trade groups are reduced to committing libel and slander by accusing folks like Richard Gage of anti-Semitism. That means Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are winning - and not the "Charlie Sheen" kind of winning.

All that is left for the establishment shills is deflection. Occupy peoples' time and attention with something like the "no plane theory". Perfect Cass Sunstein material.

In Portland, all of this no plane hologram speculation seems to center around a movie called "September Clues", which is the strongest influence among the no planers. This 90 minute film suggesting holographic imagery, "September Clues", places a great deal of emphasis on issues of timing, pixellation, audio discrepancies, camera angles, building perspectives, lower thirds station I.D.'s, silhouettes, auto-focus, reflections and protruding nose cones.

I already want my time back.

"September Clues" insists that news correspondents on the ground in New York needed to have seen the planes' impacts in order for us all to believe the planes hit the buildings. To be fair, I should mention that it looks like no on-site correspondent witnessed the actual impact of the planes. Every time reporters refer to an explosion, "Clues" cuts to giddy text over pastel colors declaring a moment of deception.

The maker of this film did not like seeing the nose cone popping out of the other side of the building. As the plane explodes with impact, you see all or part of the nose cone of the jet protrude through the other side of the building before it is consumed by the explosion. Apparently, the idea that the cone made it through the building to the other side is "monstrous video trickery". Everyone is supposed to assume that this is impossible. Like there is no way a vertical portion of the cone could make it past the 48 steel beams before exploding from the impact.

What does the editor of this movie do with this image of the emerging nose cone? Smooth out its pixels. Every frame of video footage only has so much information. There are only so many pixels. Bitmap software like photoshop is often tapped to remove the "video look" of a still video frame by smoothing out the pixels. They grab an earlier frame of an unmolested jet nose cone and superimpose it over the part of the nose cone that may have made it through the building. The protruding nose cone is slightly wider, a lot smoother, but matching! It's the fact that they match that we are supposed to realize the video-trickery of it all.

Next in the movie, from a helicopter, a videographer is supposed to have seen the cone's protrusion that brief momentary split second it exists before being consumed by an explosion. (Of course, the footage is in slow motion and there's not a lot of attention devoted to how much you're likely to see in real time). Now, all original footage of this moment has 15 frames of black to help facilitate such trickery. Forget about the idea that you haven't seen this 15 frames of black in rebroadcasts -- that's just 'the man' with doctored footage. According to "September Clues", that blackout is an attempt by videographers or switchers to prevent the audience from seeing the protruding nose cone rear it's ugly head for that one fraction (much less than half) of a second, because, if they did, it would have the same devastating impact on the impressionable audience as WTC7's free fall collapse.

Switchboard operators place a lower thirds title over a live broadcast and it may remain as a live composite even when older footage is played back. One lower thirds design was a little too big and covered up the point of impact of on older footage played back. Another "September Clue"! They were hiding the nose cone! There's no way they forgot that the point of impact may be obscured by the lower thirds I.D. The editor superimposes text: "are we to believe this was "just an accident?". See where this is going?

If you are a masochist, you could jump into the pudding and watch "September Clues".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6407548186293238834

See the vastly different camera angles on huge buildings have a slightly different perspective!

Watch how the text definitively proclaims that the angles don't look right and therefore must be the result of sloppy, doctored footage!

Watch how the average reaction to impact by pundits is 17 seconds and how that could only mean that the announcers are patiently waiting their cue while the video generated holographic imagery is fooling the television public!

See how people in the background seem to disappear! Disappear, of course, when you don't account for the fact there are two fields per every frame of video. If you freeze a frame with two fields, sometimes the edge of a moving image seems to fade into the background.

Hear the discrepancies in the sounds of impact from one angle to another and attribute them to sloppy false flag work instead of basic acoustics!

Assume that oscillating sounds like sirens can never match up in a straight cut, despite the fact your signal hits the same pitch every couple seconds!

Deny there could ever be different contrast ratios from different camera angles, depending upon where you are in relation to the sun!

Refuse to believe that the plane in question could have traveled across the horizon because, when the camera was zoomed out, the plane is not yet in view!

You too will want your time back after watching "September Clues"!

One redeeming quality about "September Clues" is that it helps to find out who is pushing this theory in the first place. Take a good look at this movie and you soon realize that those pushing the "no planes hit the building theory" are compromised. They are simply trying to distract the 9/11 Truth movement and diminish our credibility. It's become the "elephant in the room". I can't help but mourn the loss of my 9/11 activist hoe-downs from past days in Tucson, basking in the spittle of people's beet red conspiracy-baiting temper tantrums of the past. Boo hoo.

If a movement is going to make it on its own, however, it must be able to overcome these incohesive side shows to become stronger and more focused in its message. You can tell that's happening once you're labelled "anti-Semitic" for your views on 9/11 instead of being labelled "kooky".

John Lear's friend saw the hologram in the middle of the desert did he? Listen to the video and you will hear him say THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY. That is NOT in the middle of the desert but inbetween San Jose and San Fran!

Deal in facts please, makes you more credible...this lie or mis-truth tells me you know jack-shit, so send him my regards!

Anonymous, I'm not sure if you are responding to a comment of mine, where it is entirely possible that I might have said "desert". I grew up in southern California, which would still be mostly desert were it not for the importation of massive volumes of water. What matters is not the precise location but the experience that he reported. I think your sense of outrage is misdirected at me or John Lear's friend or anyone else who is trying to sort out truth from fiction. He witnessed a huge hologram of a plane, which lends additional weight to the probable use of a hologram in New York.